Local 251 election

[Teamsterstrong]

Local 251 election is heating up looks like the new slate is having momentum! Have signs everywhere been at several barns during summer ! Nomination’s are a week away let’s see how that meeting goes ????

[EASTCOASTMEMBER]

Is the hospital happy with Elvis and the rest of the current leadership ?

[Jesslynn804]

Heating up? I thought it was only 3 guys running. Not even a full slate. How many of them are elected stewards? I’m in a different local but I have Union friends all over. Seems to me 251 is pretty respected all over.
I mean it’s great to have competition but from what I have heard these guys have no chance. Executive Officer for a hot rod club and standing in a doorway during a meeting doesn’t really scream great union representation to me.

[Teamsterstrong]

Yes heating up if you knew half the stuff that went on the principal officer protecting his best friend after a sexual Assault? What’s that supposed to mean a door guy ? He is a teamster that works at Budwiser ! That’s like say BR was a unit secretary at a hospital big deal ! Santos or suazo at shipping and receiving what’s the difference! So he has a hobbie and is involved ! Taibi was an ups driver ? What’s your point

[Iamabigsecret]

Taibi has to go!!!!

[Jesslynn804]

From what I know he wouldn’t even run when they were having a Steward election a couple years ago. Now he wants to be an elected official. That’s a little strange. How did he protect his friend? I thought if you were elected you had to be removed by the eboard. Didn’t they do that? I was told he got suspended pending his eboard trial. All I know is they have a better Local now than it was before. I’ve met a lot of people from many locals and I can tell you those guys are really unionist.

[Iamabigsecret]

Ok Brooke, are u done now?

[Bud-man]

Ok Brooke. Or should I say, soon to be outside looking in. Gosh, it was just a matter of time before you became unhinged lol. Vandalizing election campaign posters. That’s grounds for immediate dismissal. But what do I know. Lol. I laugh because the reason why this administration is concerned about me, is because I am without a doubt, so much damn more intelligent than most people in the administration, and they don’t know what to do about that. Hahahaha. Too late. I win. See ya on channel 10

[Teamsterstrong]

Not to mention, he recused himself from the E board ! Also many bars came up with petitions to get rid of them in TV did nothing about it. Another thing is they moved him to a building in downtown Providence so he would not be in the Union Hall harassing woman

[Teamsterstrong]

Not to mention the other two guys running alre Shop Stewart at UPS 33+ is each one of them was on the New England supplement contract negotiating committee and has been a steward for over 20 years and the other one works at UPS also in these shifts in the yard, he has a 22 two job And he has been there 33 years plus And has a degree in labor studies. Both of those guys are well respected,

[Jesslynn804]

Didn’t they pull the names out of a hat for that committee? Are the 2 guys from UPS elected or appointed? What about the other guy not from UPS, is he well respected? I heard nobody at his pace even likes him and that’s why he didn’t run for steward.

[EASTCOASTMEMBER]

Not to mention the other two guys running alre Shop Stewart at UPS 33+ is each one of them was on the New England supplement contract negotiating committee and has been a steward for over 20 years and the other one works at UPS also in these shifts in the yard, he has a 22 two job And he has been there 33 years plus And has a degree in labor studies. Both of those guys are well respected,

If they don’t have a full slate you are waisting your breath.

save it. No full slate = incumbent win by a landslide.

[Mike S]

Lmao! There have been plenty of individuals who have beat a slate in the past! It only takes two members to run as a slate. The key is to educate members on how to vote.

[EASTCOASTMEMBER]

Good luck with that. I said what I said. Now watch what i said come true. INCUMBENTS BY A LANDSLIDE

[Teamsterstrong]

That is not necessarily true ! If you don’t have a full slate

[Jesslynn804]

Not to mention the other two guys running alre Shop Stewart at UPS 33+ is each one of them was on the New England supplement contract negotiating committee and has been a steward for over 20 years and the other one works at UPS also in these shifts in the yard, he has a 22 two job And he has been there 33 years plus And has a degree in labor studies. Both of those guys are well respected,

I heard one of the guys is well respected. I heard the other one from feeders is know for also being toxic to women. I’ve heard he also sleeps with a lot of women at rest stops while he is working.

it seems like the small group runnings campaign strategy is talking smack about the other group. Thats just dirty politics not really a campaign.

This campaign doesn’t have any effect on me. So all I can say is may the best group win.

[Mike S]

Another dumb post spreading false information! The only member toxic to women was the little lying predator fired by the Joint Council and International E board and protected by the Secretary Treasurer!

[Mike S]

Did you forget about the money little sexual predator stole from our striking DHL members? He took the money we collected at a union meeting home and then tried to give it all to the female steward he was trying to bang! The Secretary Treasurer tried to protect his ass again! He should have been fired on the spot, not to mention all his other escapades that any other officer or BA would have been suspended or removed for!

[Nickjamesups]

Toxic to women? Do you mean like O’Brien posting a photo of a man with a gun to a woman’s head on his Facebook page ?

[Iamabigsecret]

If it has no effect on u why r u consistently commenting ur 2 cents? Be seen not heard.

Dirty politics but yet ur over here airing out what u “heard” about someone lol.enough shhh, u sound ridiculous

[Teamsterstrong]

There’s no way he sleeps with women at rest areas he works for ups they are under a watchful eye from what I hear about management! So I don’t believe that one bit and toxic to women what’s that even mean

[AlJackson1962!]

What has not been reported here (as I understand it) is that, Sean O'Brien personally intervened to stay the suspension of an elected Local 251 BA pending the outcome of that member's appeal to Joint Council 10. O'Brien's stay of the BA's suspension was implemented despite a 7-0 Local 251 Executive Board decision. O'Brien's stay cost the Local 251 treasury many months of full wages and H&W and Pension that was paid out to the suspended member who performed no work for the Local during that period. The JC10 decision fully upheld the Local 251 Executive Board decision, and accordingly the suspended BA's suspension remains in effect.

Three questions that active Local 251 members deserve the answers to:

1) Did the International reimburse the members of Local 251 for the wages and benefits paid out from the Local 251 treasury?
2) How common is this circumstance, wherein the IBT GP "stays" a unanimous decision by a Local Union Executive Board pending an appeal by the affected member?
3) What provision in the IBT Constitution was relied on by O'Brien when he issued his "stay"?

Without O'Brien's implementing a "stay" the suspended BA, under the Union Leave provisions of the CBA, had every right to return to work at UPS until the JC10 decision was issued. It's my understanding that the suspended BA did not return to his UPS bargaining unit job until after collecting full wages and benefits through the period of the JC10 decision. Instead, he stayed on the Local Union's payroll for months.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that the Principal Officer took no action against the suspended BA until he was required to address internal charges filed. This, notwithstanding the Principal Officer's having personally witnessed the circumstances giving rise to the internal charges.

In contrast to the way the above offending BA circumstance was handled: Another Local 251 staff member, that held the appointed position of Assistant BA, after 9+ years of service in that capacity, was summarily fired by the Local 251 Executive Board without a reason, without a hearing, and his firing was done by a telephone call days after the fired member returned from disability absence.

Among the basic tenets of just cause that Union members fight for in every contract are: 1) Was there a fair investigation of the circumstances giving rise to the decision to terminate? 2) Did the penalty fit the alleged violation? 3) Is the penalty equal in terms of discipline issued to other workers for like offenses? Local 251 staff are all Local 251 members. One would think that the Principal and other Executive Board members would be mindful of treating all staff members equally; notwithstanding there being a contractual provision allowing a just cause determination.

These events are among the sordid events that have taken place in Local 251. Prior to the above circumstances, rank and file members from the beer and liquor jurisdiction in Local 251, collectively stood up at monthly Local Union meetings to demand they be represented by a BA other than the suspended BA referenced above.

In addition, the Principal Officer of Local 251 refused to aid and assist members of the Local 251/Crown Linen bargaining unit, after their employer never paid NE Pension Fund contributions for the unit for a period of 16 months, despite the appeals filed by affected unit members. Why? Another question that Local 251 members deserve the answer to.

So, when I read the above derogatory statements about the Local 251 Integrity Slate, it demands that the facts be told. These are three Local 251 members that have been active Teamster members exercising their rights under the IBT Constitution and Local 251 Bylaws to challenge the entrenched leadership of Local 251 for legitimate reasons. They want and deserve change. And I support them!

[Gimme_Danger]

Did you object to former GP Hoffa staying the discipline imposed on L251 leaders, pending the appeals process being exhausted in 2016-17? You worked there then, correct?
My understanding is that staying a decision under appeal is normal. An elected BA can only be removed from that position by action of the Executive Board, subject to appeal to the Joint Council and the GEB. Members elect their leaders and the principal officer rightfully should not be able to overturn the will of the membership on elected positions. Due process is important. You should read the IBT Constitution before making statements that show your ignorance.

[AlJackson1962!]

I've not personally ever been involved in the filing of internal Teamster Union charges, nor have they ever been imposed on me. However, in a telephone discussion with TDU staff member David Levin, when I raised this particular matter back in 2023, he advised me that such an intervention does not take place. When JC10 suspended Paul Santos and Brooke Reeves (Is that what you're referring to?) Brooke was employed by Rhode Island Hospital as I recall - not full-time for Local 251, while Santos was a full-time President and BA. You can ask Paul Santos if he received his Local 251 salary and benefit contributions during his suspension by JC10. Both myself and other Local 251 members voluntarily donated money to assist Brother Santos during this period. If he was collecting his salary, I'm asking for my donation back.
So, I was not aware that Hoffa, Jr. stayed their suspensions. Please advise if Santos was paid by Local 251 during that suspension if indeed you have that information.

Note: The suspensions of Santos and Reeves, as I recall, involved Rhode Island Hospital management allowing the use of the employer's printshop at Rhode Island Hospital for the Joe Bairos led slate's campaign - the slate that Teamsters Local 251 United Action Slate defeated in 2013.


If you're correct in stating that an IBT GP "stay" of determinations made by Local Union Executive Board is "normal" then I stand corrected. What section of the IBT Constitution provides that a unanimous Local Union Executive Board decision can be stayed by the IBT GP, requiring that a suspended member and elected BA continue to stay on the Local Union payroll until he/she exhausts internal IBT appeals?

[Gimme_Danger]

Article 19, Section 10 (a-d) is the relevant part of the IBT Constitution. You can always try to ask your former slate members about what happened during that particular internal trial proceeding, if they'll ever talk to you again. But my understanding is these are very common procedures.

[AlJackson1962!]

Yo Gimmee_Danger!

In our exchange of comments here, you raised the matter of the JC10 suspensions of Local 251 members in 2016-17. I was not aware that GP Hoffa, Jr. stayed the suspensions as you stated . My recollection is that Local 251 filed an NLRB charge against JC10 for the suspension of Santos and Reeves, and Local 251 was successful - an NLRB ALJ reversed the JC10 decision to suspend them; however, I am not aware that the NLRB ruling included that JC10 make them whole for lost wages and benefit contributions.

If you want to make a comparison of the circumstances resulting in the Local 251 E Board's 7-0 suspension of the Local 251 BA in 2023 and the JC10 2016 suspensions of Santos and Reeves, I believe that is a very poor analogy. My understanding was the 2016 case centered around supporters of the Local 251 slate led by Joe Bairos, who were allowed to use the RI Hospital printshop to print pro-Bairos slate leaflets - a clear violation of federal labor law (taking contributions from an employer for a union campaign election - something that Reeves and Santos rightfully opposed). The circumstances involving the 2023 Local 251 suspension of the BA, were of a serious personal nature. I have no interest in publicizing the details of that event. The affected members have suffered enough and I assume they want to put that event in their rear view mirror and move on.

Reviewing Article 19, Section 10 (a) - (d) (as you suggested I do), "A Local Union ordered to reinstate a member or perform an act other than the payment of a fine must comply therewith as a condition precedent to taking an appeal unless the General President or the General Executive Board suspends such order pending the appeal."

So, is this the provision of the IBT Constitution you're referencing? I believe GP O'Brien may have had the authority to require Local 251 to continue paying the suspended BA; you may be correct.

However:

Gimmee_Danger, you asked me above the following: "Did you object to former GP Hoffa staying the discipline imposed on L251 leaders, pending the appeals process being exhausted in 2016-17? You worked there then, correct?"

Yes, I was employed by Local 251 during that period (on Union Leave from New Penn) as Contract Coordinator; I led bargaining on most Local 251 white paper CBA's, of which there were over 100. I worked there from 1/1/2014 through 11/30/2022, when I retired at age 70+. I witnessed the changes that occurred upon Local 251 Principal Officer Matt Taibi's joining the OZ Slate. Whereas, in the past, Taibi had no issue in calling out then JC10 S/T Sean O'Brien for his mis truths and threats against those he perceived as his opponents. Taibi went from openly criticizing O'Brien to becoming his defender. And Taibi now, sits at the IBT table banking his multiple salaries, and ignores serious issues that impact Local 251 members and the Teamsters and US labor movement generally. That mindset by Teamster leadership needs to change! Clearly, you Gimmee_Danger don't agree.

If my fellow and former Local 251 United Action Slate members might not talk to me again, as you posted, might be the case, I'll live with that. But it won't stop me from saying what I believe needs to be said and heard; in my 50 years as a Teamster, 29 as a rank and file truck driver, interspersed with an additional 21 years as a full-time Local Union officer and/or BA, I believe I've proven that.

[Gimme_Danger]

A ULP against an internal hearing decision?? That doesn't happen, ever. And it didn’t happen in that case either. Your memory is clearly flawed. You should get the facts straight before slinging this false information.

[Bud-man]

Yes buddy you have proven that. And then some. If we had more members like yourself, this local would be the model for every local in the country. Not only have you been an amazing rank and file member! You were one of the best contract coordinators this union has ever seen. And if that isn’t enough for those critics out there, I can and will have no problem telling anybody that you are also a great friend and family man. Love ya buddy

[AlJackson1962!]

IBT Local 251 ULP defense and decision JDD.01-CB-172600.ALJBogas.docx (2).pdf

To those, including Gimmee_ Danger: Please see above file regarding the circumstances that (as I understand) led to Joint Council 10's 2016 decision to discipline Local 251 President, Paul Santos and Local 251 Union Liason at Rhode Island Hospital, Brooke Reeves. The decision clears them both of any violations under the NLRA. The decision did not specifically overturn the JC10 suspensions, but, in effect it finds no basis for the JC10 discipline imposed on Santos and Reeves.

Gimmee_Danger: Are you stating that a Union member has no right to file a ULP against his/her Union because of Union discipline? And that the NLRB has no jurisdiction to rule on a wrongful Union suspension of a a Union member, if that suspension violates the NLRA?

Thank you Brother, for your anticipated response.

[Gimme_Danger]

Glad you actually looked at facts. Who is the charge filed by and against whom? Hint: it's not what you are saying.

[AlJackson1962!]

Gimmee_Danger:

You have claimed it's "normal" that suspensions of elected officers and business agents are "stayed" or held in abeyance for purposes of wages and benefits - that elected officers and business agents remain on the payroll pending a final decision on the affected official or BA 's appeal. And you raised the Santos and Reeves suspensions in 2016 by JC10 as an analogy. I recognize that the NLRB decision did not overturn their suspensions; the decision dismissed the ULP filed over the alleged actions by Reeves and Santos.

In this thread, I raised the inequity of the 2023 suspension of the Local 251 BA, for egregious actions; the GP steps in and stays his suspension, so he stays on the Union's payroll for months until the JC upholds the 7-0 decision by the Local 251 E. Board. You state that's "normal". Local 251 members were advised at each monthly meeting that the suspended BA must stay on the payroll pending a JC10 decision on his appeal. Whereas, that was not the case during the suspensions of Santos and Reeves. Neither of them (to my knowledge) drew any salary during the period commencing with the JC10 suspensions. However, you stated (see below post by you):

#11.1
Gimme_Danger commented
09-06-2025, 03:02 PM
Did you object to former GP Hoffa staying the discipline imposed on L251 leaders, pending the appeals process being exhausted in 2016-17? You worked there then, correct?

I am not aware that GP Hoffa, Jr. stayed Santos and Reeves suspensions. You are saying he did, correct?

Furthermore: The inequity of the Local 251's 2023 termination of an appointed BA with 9+ years of service, with no reason, no hearing, and no notice. And he was fired over the telephone the day he returned to work from being out on disability. Are you ok with that means of handling discipline in a Local Union? I sure as hell, am not ok with it. No worker should be treated that way.

[Gimme_Danger]

You should ask them yourself. My understanding from people that I talk to, is the process was almost identical. The difference was one discipline involved 30 day suspensions, the other involved termination.